The court held that a dispute regarding the dismissal of an employee of a society is within the ambit of industrial jurisdiction and that the Labour Court has the power to decide the validity of the dismissal order and the entitlement to claim wages under S.33C(2) of the Act.

U.L. Bhat, J.

1. These two writ petitions are filed challenging an order dated 5-1-1980 in C. P. Nos. 480 of 1976 and 71 of 1978 passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act).

2. The petitioner in O. P. No. 566 of 1980 was working as the Manager of the Tellicherry branch of the North Malabar District Cooperative Supply & Marketing Society Limited, Calicut (for short the 'Society') (Petitioner in O. P. No. 1117 of 1980 and the first respondent in O. P. No. 566 of 1980). The petitioner in O. P. No. 566 of 1980 and the petitioner in O. P. No. 1117 of 1980 will be referred to herein as the petitioner and the first respondent Society respectively. While so, the first respondent reverted the petitioner as Inspector. The petitioner filed an arbitration case before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies challenging the order of reversion and obtained an order of stay. On the strength of the stay order he continued in office as Manager. On 11-1-1971 the President of the first respondent again passed an order of reversion reverting the petitioner as Inspector and directing him to report for duty as Inspector at Thariyod Depot, allowing four days joining time. The order was served on 13-1-1971. The petitioner entered on privilege leave for 13 days. On 19-1-1971 he filed another arbitration case as 7-70-71 before the Deputy Registrar, who passed an order staying the reversion order until the disposal of the case. Apprehending delay in communicating the order of stay on account of strike in the office of the Deputy Registrar, on 22-1-1971 the petitioner sent an affidavit to the Secretary of the first respondent informing the first respondent about the stay order. Meanwhile on 20-1-1971, the first respondent's Secretary issued a Memo to the petitioner directing him to join duty at Thariyod Depot on the expiry of the leave. Leave expired on 26-1-1971. In view of the stay order the petitioner did not join duty as Inspector at Thariyod Depot on 27-1-1971. On the other hand, he went to the Tellicherry Branch of the first respondent and marked his attendance there. The first respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on two charges, viz., he disobeyed the first respondent's order directing him to rejoin duty at Thariyod Depot and in violation of the order he went to the Tellicherry Branch and signed the attendance register. The petitioner submitted an explanation denying the charges. A domestic enquiry was conducted and the same ended in an order dismissing the petitioner from service of the first respondent with effect from 22-2-1971. At that time an industrial dispute was pending between the first respondent and the workmen. The first respondent did not seek approval for the action of dismissal under S.33(2)(b) of the Act. In view of the non compliance with this provision of law, the first respondent suo motu cancelled the dismissal order on 10-5-1971 and on the same day, issued a fresh order of dismissal. One month's emoluments of Rs. 530/- was sent by Money Order and an application was filed before the Labour Court for approval under S.33(2)(b) of the Act. On 18-5-1976 the Labour Court passed Ext. P1 order rejecting the request for the approval, holding the dismissal order to be invalid and improper. O. P. No. 3912 of 1976 filed by the first respondent challenging this order was dismissed by this Court (Ext. P2 judgment). In the two arbitration cases filed by the petitioner challenging the two reversion orders, the first respondent raised a contention that the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide the disputes. The Deputy Registrar overruled this objection and upheld his jurisdiction. In the appeal filed by the first respondent against that decision before the Cooperative Tribunal, it was held that the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction and the two arbitration cases were dismissed. This order was challenged by he petitioner in th